Standard preview mismatch in catalog

In the Adobe_variables_table in my LR5 catalog, the AgPreviewBuilder_standard size is 1440, as set in my prefs. But further down in the table, the SynchroniseFolder_StandardPreviewSize is 1680 (the default value?). Does this make sense to anyone?
Bob Frost

Hi Bob,
may be SynchroniseFolder_StandardPreviewSize is for flickr, fb, revel, etc. export the default?

Similar Messages

  • Standard Preview Size/Preview Quality

    This may be a silly question, but in Library mode, under Edit>Catalogue Settings>File Handling, you have options under Preview Cache for 'Standard Preview Size' (1024/1440/1680/2048/2880 pixels) and Preview Quality (High/Medium/Low)... but what do these settings actually do; I've tried changing them & not noticed and difference??

    Les_Cornwell wrote:
    Thanks again Rob
    You bet .
    Les_Cornwell wrote:
    I've tried all the different size options, namely 1024 through to 2880 & low/Medium/high and none make any obvious difference at all.
    So are previews only created as required when you view a picture in full screen mode or does LR create a preview for all your files?
    Every image you look at in Library module comes from the (library) previews, there are up to 8 possible jpegs:
    * a tiny thumbnail in root-pixels.db
    * up to 7 jpegs ranging from small to 1:1 in the "preview pyramid" (each smaller is half the dimensions of it's bigger sibling).
    Try this with a 10 photo test catalog:
    If you have a big monitor and set standard preview size to 1024, then (with Lr closed) delete all previews, then restart Lr and wait for all the "..." indicators to be extinguished (indicating standard previews have been built), then step from photo to photo in loupe view with all panels collapsed (loupe view "real-estate" maximized), you should see "loading" indicator, since it needs a bigger preview than you've got built. What it will do then is build 1:1 previews and all the smaller ones along with it, which is suboptimal from a performance point of view. If you try and zoom in to 1:1 after the "loading", there will be no additional loading, since 1:1 previews were already built.
    Then, repeat the test with preview size at max - no loading indicators, right? (when stepping in loupe view after standard previews have finished being built, I mean). Except now if you try to zoom in there will be "loading", since 1:1 preview were not required to display the loupe view, they will need to be built for the zoomed (1:1) view.
    The only difference between big enough and too big will be an ever-so-slightly greater lag when stepping in the loupe view and no 1:1 preview exists (when preview is too big I mean), since it's loading a bigger standard preview than is actually needed. Reminder: if preview is not big enough, there will be an ever-so-slightly bigger lag when stepping in loupe view too (e.g. vs. just big enough), since it's using the 1:1 preview instead of standard (which wasn't big enough). So, tester beware... (somewhat counter-intuitively, in some cases, it will be faster loading a preview when settings are, in general, too big, because it can get away with loading the next size down, which is an even better fit, e.g. if image is cropped just so - all of these little nuances make it especially tricky to test & evaluate, so consider doing initial tests using uniform-size uncropped images, to reduce the number of variables - it's confusing enough as it is ;-}).
    Note: as previously mentioned, there is considerable complexity (and bugs) in the preview system, and I may not have described it perfectly, so it wouldn't surprise me if your results were not exactly like that, but I just went and retested on my system, and what happened is exactly as I described above (win7/64), as I read it anyway...
    Regarding quality, you should see difference in some photos not others, but ONLY if it didn't resort to the 1:1 preview which may be higher quality than the standard and is independent of the standard quality setting. (I think somebody may have stated that you'd need to zoom in to see differences in standard preview quality settings, but that is wrong - the only way to see differences in standard preview quality settings is if you are in fact viewing standard previews, which you aren't when zoomed in to 1:1, and anyway it can be ellusive - see paragraphs above...).
    PS - If you want to compare jpeg quality of standard previews, one way is to export them using PreviewExporter. Again, it's tricky, since you need to assure you aren't exporting a scaled down version of the 1:1 instead of a true standard preview. After exporting you can compare outside Lightroom, so you don't have the "preview of a preview" issue going... I use Beyond Compare by Scooter Software for doing objective comparison of like-sized jpegs, but you can compare subjectively using any ol' viewer, e.g. as built into OS.
    Too much?
    UPDATE:
    Les_Cornwell wrote:
    does LR create a preview for all your files?
    No - they are created on an as-needed basis (thus the reason we hear many complaints about how stale or non-existent previews should be built in the background, to minimize "loading" in library module, e.g. after making dev changes to a large bunch), but note: standard previews may be considered "needed" when thumbnail is in view in grid or filmstrip (but not considered needed if thumbnail is off-screen, even if existing in filmstrip and/or grid).
    R
    Message was UPDATED by: Rob Cole

  • Can you generate 40,000 standard previews?

    Is there anyone using LR 2 on Windows with a catalog greater than 40,000
    images who can delete all previews and then generate all 40,000 standard
    previews in a single step without encountering a performance problem?
    Best,
    Christopher

    I've rendered 70,000 images several times in LR, but have never succeeded in one run. It usually takes two or three runs to complete all of them. On my V64, it doesn't hang, it just goes into 'warp' mode and pretends to render them (according to the progress bar)in a fraction of the normal time. Re-running it shows tens of thousands still left unrendered. But after two or three runs, it gets there. Adobe knows of the problem on my V64 system, but filling in their bug report with details of your system might help them.
    Bob Frost.

  • Does generating Standard previews on import generate 1:1 as well?

    OK, I'm am supremely frustrated now. 8 hours of preview generation down the drain because Lightroom will not discard 1:1 previews (I've tried 6 times) resulting in a 30Gb catalog. I had to finally delete it. I then let it recatalog all the files only to get 1Gb of thumbnails and no standard previews (so I can't look at the photos in decent resolution when I'm unplugged from the HDD where the originals are stored). I am not about spend 8 hours regenerating previews only to have the 1:1's not discardable (I do NOT want them). If I just re-import and choose to render images while it imports, will it create 1:1 as well? If so, I may just have to kill myself :P

    I've tried both relaunch/Optimize and ensuring that "copy" was not checked. When I re-import the images at lower preview settings, the catalog does get smaller. It still seems a bit big for the preview settings tho. I think I'm going to scrap the entire catalog, including the dBase and see what happens with a new import. Gonna use "1440 Medium". I'll report back with what happens.

  • How to trigger LR to discard standard previews?

    This is NOT about smart previews, but Library-module previews. It is neither about 1:1 previews, but standard previews.
    Situation: I use an external SSD as "external catalog disk", with my LR catalog and the previews on it, in order to plug it to 2 different computers which I use alternatively.
    Due to a badly considered synch-folder import I ended up with unwanted effects and way too many images and previews, so I decided to go back to the last good catalog backup.
    So in theory I should have had 100GB of excess previews from the discarded catalog version, no longer needed for the restored catalog version.
    How do I trigger LR to throw them away?
    I tried to trigger the build of standard previews of folders, which contain now much less images than before, hoping that this would get rid of them. To my astonishment LR said it had to rebuild almost all of the previews for the chosen folders. Why - they should have been there already? Usually, when a backup-catalog version is restored as current (same name, same storage location), the previews are recognized?
    After this finished a night later, I still have the same size of the catalog previews folder!
    Any ideas?
    Before you suggest that I delete all previews and let LR rebuild them from scratch: we are talking of a catalog of 2,2GB size, 150'000 images, and 190 GB of previews (plus 146 GB of smart previews, although they are not my current concern). This will take almost a week to rebuild... so I'd prefer something more straight forward.
    Thanks, Cornelia

    Cornelia-I wrote:
    the little delay about throwing away a preview after deleting an image from the catalog I quote from Victoria Bampton's Missing FAQs. Quite useful to wait an average undo-period.
    I guess I'll have to give you/V the benefit of the doubt for now.. - thanks.
    Cornelia-I wrote:
    Anyhow the logic about creating and assigning standard previews keeps me puzzled, as my non-scientific observations always seem to have them "never" without update need.
    I've read that a half-dozen times now . If I understand, it breaks down thusly:
    * You sometimes have previews for photos which no longer exist in the catalog (e.g. due to dragging a backup catalog file into the catalog folder).
    * Even when previews exist for a photo, they're often out-of-date, and therefore not much fun (since Lr re-builds them when it goes to use them anyway).
    Adobe provided a method in Lr5 for plugins to update previews, but it doesn't work well enough, and so I'm not using it, except in a few limited/experimental contexts.. But I could find a way to remove extraneous previews, and also to select photos whose previews are out of date, at which point the "build standard previews" function could be invoked, either manually or programmatically (via plugin) using keyboard stuffing. Let me give that some thought..
    Rob

  • Installing Lightroom 5 for first time. Chose standard previews of the 100,000+ photos on removable hard drive. Lightroom stopped creating previews after the first 10,000 or so pictures. Don't see how to start it moving forward again. Thanks!

    I think I did everything correctly. Moved pictures to the external drive as per Microsoft's instructions for Windows 8. All worked fine. Everything else in Lightroom seems to work fine. However, it just stopped creating standard size previews.

    Glad you had success. You can check to see how many preview files have been built by checking the Lightroom 5 Catalog Previews.lrdata folder with File Explorer:
    /Users/[user name]/Pictures/Lightroom/Lightroom 5 Catalog Previews.lrdata
    Right-click on the folder and select 'Properties.' Next to 'Contains' will be the file count representing the number of built previews. It should be the same as the number of pictures (100,000) or slightly more.
    Creating previews for 100,000 image files will take a long time! My Windows 7 i7-860 processor system with 21 mp Canon 5D MKII raw files takes about 3 seconds to build one standard preview. Using this number for 100,000 previews:
    100,000 x 3 seconds = 300,000 sec. = 5,000 min. = 83 hours = 3.5 days!

  • Why doesn't LR let us use embedded/standard previews (at least optionally)?

    I bought LR but cannot commit to using it mainly because it is too slow importing and browsing previews but also because LR's previews are worse than the embedded previews in RAW images or JPGs as displayed by other standard programs like Photo Mechanic, Breeze Browser or ADCSee.
    I shoot Canon RAW (then convert the CR2s to DNG) and occasionally JPG (1DMkII) but I get hundreds of images from friends and family, mostly JPG, taken with many different cameras. The vast majority of these pictures look terrific in PM, BB or ACDSee, etc but they look significantly worse in LR. LR renders its own previews from RAW files instead of using the excellent embedded preview that's already there and LR also somehow changes the JPG preview so that it looks bland and off color in comparison to the same image viewed in PM, ACDC or BB on the same computer. I assume LR's color management or color space is what changes the previews (and thumbs) so they look different (bad) in LR than they look in other standard programs.
    Why can't we at least have the option of using embedded previews in LR and display them normally like PM, BB and ACDC. Then LR would be fast (like PM, BB and ACDC) importing and displaying previews and we would not have to fiddle with exposure or color adjustments to get decent previews. Yes, I can get LR to just about match (sometimes exceed) the image quality of other programs but only with massive fiddling with individual images (the camera calibration controls are not sufficient by themselves) and that is a massive pain in the butt.
    I, of course, have read many posts about color management. But I refuse to buy expensive color calibration tools and go through that expense and aggravation just to accommodate LR. My pictures already look great in PM, BB, ACDSee and web browsers and on other non-color managed computers. I think LR should be able to be operated in a standard manner so it is consistent with other standard software. The fact is that the vast majority of all amateur photographers, even pretty serious folks, do not hassle with color management because standard software displays very nice images already.
    Another point. Some folks like to use Canon or Nikon or other RAW converters instead of Adobe's (for all or some images). If they develop their RAWS in DPP or Capture NX, etc, then import the images into LR, LR renders its own previews which disregard the work done in the 3rd party converter. This is pretty annoying and virtually prevents such folks from using LR. Other programs that use the embedded previews display the adjustments made in 3rd party RAW converters very nicely.
    Regards
    Bill Wood

    Thanks for the replies. Sorry I could not respond sooner.
    Nobody addressed my question. Why is there no option in LR to use embedded previews in RAW files and why is there no option to display JPG previews in a standard color space, presumably sRGB, like other standard software - Photo Mechanic, Breeze Browser, ACDSee, etc, etc?
    LR's insistence on rendering previews from RAW files makes the program too slow and it forces users to diddle with settings to get previews that look normal - meaning match what 99% of the rest of the world sees on normal non-color managed computer screens. Folks who want rendered previews and non-standard color space (ProPhoto) and all the rest of us who just want standard previews by default should both be accommodated. Just give us the option to choose.
    I just downloaded IDImager, a competing database type DAM program, for a trial. It does give users the option to use embedded previews for fast import and display or it will render previews from RAW if you choose that option. So it can be done and an embedded preview choice makes the program much faster and easier for most people to use.
    Just a few comments about the replies:
    Lee Jay said LR doesn't use embedded previews because:
    "Correct...that's because it's a RAW converter and must display what you'd get from a RAW conversion."
    Well, with respect, I cannot agree. First, LR is not just a RAW converter, its much more. If it was that limited, I never would have bought it and neither would anybody else. I already have ACR in Photoshop. Second, it is not mandatory that LR render previews from RAWs. It could optionally use embedded previews if that option was offered. Why do some folks lobby for lack of flexibility? I bet even you naysayers would use embedded previews sometimes, like when you want speed to show pictures to your family, friends and don't need to fester over image adjustments.
    Lee Jay also said regarding the difference between my JPG previews in LR vs. other standard software:
    "That is likely the fault of your monitor profile, which LR uses and the other programs (probably) don't. It could also be caused by you having "automatically apply auto tone" set, or by applying a preset on import."
    No, it LR's fault, period. Every other program I have ever used displays my pictures just fine (Photo Mechanic, Breeze Browser, ADCSee, etc, etc, even Windows free Picture and Fax Viewer works fine. Yes, I can diddle with LR's settings and get nice previews but I don't want to diddle with every image. And it ain't my monitor profile - I can delete it or change it and the issue remains. LR makes different previews from standard software because it renders previews from RAW data and uses a non-standard color space. Camera calibration (or presets) is not a reasonable solution for everybody. I have several cameras, my kids have many different cameras, friends have different cameras and I get images from all these people - so I have a ton of very different images in different lighting and I am not about to setup numerous different calibrations or presets to see previews in LR when I get excellent previews from other standard software that uses embedded previews and produces great previews with no work whatsoever. All I am suggesting is the option to use embedded previews and a standard color space. Again I must ask why do some folks argue for lack of flexibility?
    John McWilliams said about LR's power:
    "The neat thing is you can make the image look just about anyway you want without loss of quality."
    I could not agree more - LR is a good program! But, I don't want to diddle with every image. Most of them are fine, in fact, terrific right out of the camera. I just want to see them faster and I want them to match what other people see on standard non-color managed computers. If PM, BB, ACDSee and others can do it, so can LR.
    David Edwards said:
    "The images that I want to see in the Library section are RAW images with all the adjustments I have made to them and certainly not the embedded JPGs. If I wanted to see those I would have shot JPG."
    This is fine and no doubt makes perfect sense for David's workflow. But, why advocate against an option to use embedded previews for those who would find that useful? I too shoot only RAW with my DSLR cameras because I want the best images and the ability to use all of LR's (or DPPs) conversion powers when appropriate. But, as I said above, the vast majority of my embedded previews are good enough right out of the camera as viewed in PM, BB or ACDSee so I don't need to make any adjustments. :) Only LR creates a problem my rendering less than desirable previews by default. I also want to note that embedded previews do, in fact, display all changes made in LR and I cannot tell any difference in quality on screen between embedded previews and rendered previews when I adjust the LR version to match the default embedded preview and compare them side-by-side in LR and PM, for example.
    David also asked:
    "Do you need a RAW converter or an application to display images?"
    Both. Preferably in the same program. LR is supposed to be an all-in-one solution. It certainly will be when it gets more mature, I hope. I am a amateur so my main need is to see my pictures. I like them and enjoy them but LR is too slow importing and displaying thumbs and previews in Library mode and its previews usually need adjustment. So right now I am forced to use PM, BB or ACDSee all of which are way faster importing and browsing images and they use embedded previews that are fine, even excellent, by default.
    I think Adobe is missing out on a significant number of potential users because LR does not provide the options I am requesting. I am certainly not the only person who wants faster importing and browsing and previews that look good by default. And, as I mentioned before, folks who use other RAW converters are also excluded since they cannot see the changes they make before importing images into LR because LR will not display embedded previews.
    Regards
    Bill Wood

  • Standard Preview size/quality Lightroom 1.1. (how and what)

    I'm working on a Macbook pro, with hi-res 17" screen 1920x1200. In most manuals, tutorials etc. it says that you can "set the standard preview size fitting for your screen".
    I'm looking for some more background info on the standard preview, to decide which setting to use(if somebody has other criteria to keep in mind please do say so):
    1) What is the difference in size of files for the different combination of options (pixel/quality). Does somebody have a list.
    2) What is the actual difference in the quality options
    3) In which modules is the preview size used (also in development and slide show?)
    4) Are they also used to generate the thumbnails from? If so, does a higher standard preview size reduce the performance in library mode because it as to shrink bigger files for these thumbnails?
    5) what happens if I would use the smaller, let's say 1440 preview and then decide to view the picture full-size, in library or slide show
    6) What would be the size (in pixels) on the normal main window in lightroom on my 1920x1200 screen. if it is about 1440 (might take that one)
    Last question of course: What standard preview size / quality should I use on my 1920x1200 screen??
    Thanks in advance for all your thoughts!

    As to standard preview size and quality, try 1440 and 1680 and Med and High quality and see what you like best. You will probably choose 1680 size for your screen running at 1920x1200. That will let you run LR full screen where the image size will be close to the full size of your monitor. You can try 1440 too but I doubt that you will see any performance improvement. I have tried both sizes on my 1600x1200 monitor and I see no difference in quality or speed.
    Try both Med and High quality and see if you notice any difference in your preview quality or speed. High will make your preview folders bigger which might be a factor if you have limited hard drive space.
    Don't think preview size has anything to do with thumbs. Standard previews are separate from 1:1 previews so you can always zoom in and LR will generate a full size preview.
    In short feel free to experiment with various settings in LR. Good way to learn the program and you will know what works best on your particular computer.

  • Does anyone know why I get varying file sizes when I save a jpg (with same settings-None, 12, base "standard", preview checked) from PhotoshopCS5?

    I opened a .psd file (300 ppi, CMYK, .jpgs (1626px x 2130px), I saved it as a jpg (None, 12, base "standard", preview checked).
    I then closed the original .psd file.
    I repeated those steps on the same file and saved a series of 6 .jpgs.
    Of those 6 files, I received 2 large files (6.2MB) and 4 smaller (3.2MB) files.
    My coworkers who were having trouble opening some of my jpg images in Windows Photo Gallery on Vista OS were able to open the smaller files but not the larger ones.
    Do you have any idea why the same settings would give me different file sizes from CS5?
    Is there a way I can make it consistently keep the smaller more compatible version?

    How well a image data compresses depends on image content.   Image with High detail do not compress well image will little detail will compress well and the file size will be small. Compare a image of a blank white wall to a wall with a black and white checker board wall paper.  One is all white it white no other detail  to detail the other has squares that vary in size because of perspective angle and distance a lot of detail must be recorded.
    I do not know why they can not open some of your images. File size should not be an issue.   All your image decoded are the same size  Width number of Pixels Height numbers of pixels background layer only for these are jpeg files.

  • Standard Preview versus 1:1 preview

    I've always been curious about the differences between these two previews.
    Given the fact that Import can optionally generate a standard preview, why would I want a 1:1 preview? And if 1:1 is preferable should a standard preview not be performed during import opting instead to generate the 1:1 preview later?

    I've found that the import process works better if you have it render standard previews during import. It will only render 1:1 previews if you need them. For example, if you zoom in on an image to 1:1, it will generate the needed image for you to see and save it as a 1:1 preview. It will not just do this in the background for all images unless you've told it to render all images at 1:1.
    Lee Jay

  • LR5 import problem with rendering standard previews

    When I import from an SD card in LR5, the first phase of the import works fine, then the second phase is to "render standard previews" and the import process stalls at photo #3. If I double click on one of the photos, and then go back to the grid view, the importing continues fine. What is happening and how can this be overcome. Thanks,
    [email protected]

    I leave it until the bar at the top left of the screen which says 'rendering previews' has finished and disappeared, and I've also taken to using Task Manager to watch and wait until the cpu activity has reduced to zero. As you say, this can take some time.
    If I then scroll through the grid of imported images, I find some that still have three dots, and which slowly disappear one by one as they are rendered. That is very tedious, so I go back to select all, wait for the metadata to be collected as shown by the bar, select 'render standard previews' - a new bar appears saying 'scanning existing previews', and when that has finished it puts up the rendering previews and starts rendering the ones that still had three dots on them. It then eventually finishes and the bar closes, but with the last lot, I had to repeat this three times before it scanned existing previews and then stopped instead of starting the 'rendering previews' bar again. Each time it added some more previews, until they had eventually been done, and there were no images in the grid view with three dots (other than the brief flash of dots as I scroll normally).
    I've also got in the habit of clicking on 'all photographs' after opening LightRoom and waiting until Task Manager shows it has finished it's 'housekeeping', before starting any work. This seems to minimise 'Out of Memory' dialogs or 'Not Responding' situations.

  • Weird Standard Preview Problem

    I had posted elsewhere about a problem with the "standard previews". Basically they can be there at one point and "POOF" they are gone the next time I open a particular folder. (My settings were 1440 and Medium.) Even within a folder there can be some that show the preview fine and some show previews that look like a very small JPEG file (and badly compressed to boot).
    It was suggested that generally closing LR and restarting it generally solves this problem - nope did not help.
    Any suggestions - aside from deleting the files and importing them all over again?
    Thanks,
    Steve

    Hi Hal,
    Yes, I have tried Library//Render Standard Previews. It occassionally seems to be doing something. Even tried putting the particular DVD back in the drive, selected all the photos in that particular directory and then selected "render standard previews". Nada - nothing changed.
    Even tried changing my preview settings (from 1440/Medium to 1600/High) and no difference.
    Thanks
    Steve
    BTW - If there is some "rendering going on in the background", then Adobe should have explained that we need to leave the DVD/CDR/Source Disk in longer after the program indicated (by the progress bars at the top) that the importing/rendering is completed.

  • Stuck on "Rendering Standard Previews"

    After importing images, Lightroom (2.4) is getting stuck in the "Rendering Standard Previews" process.  I have been sitting here for over an hour while Lightroom is stuck at 6 of 117.  This happened on an earlier import as well, and I ended up canceling that process -- it was stuck on 1 of 6.
    Has anyone else seen this, and is there a fix?
    Thanks,
    Nick

    Actually, I seem to also be stuck on "Preparing File for Editing" as I try to process a photo in Photoshop.  Somehow the "process" process is getting stuck.
    Nick

  • Rendering standard previews

    If I import a few thousand nefs (or jpgs or psds), with 'render standard previews checked' on a PC, it does not render ALL the standard previews. If I then run 'select all' and 'render standard previews', it checks for existing standard previews and starts rendering the ones it missed on import. Even then it still misses some, and I have to repeat this about three times before it finally finds it has rendered them all.
    Something not quite right?
    [Standard previews set to 1640 and high quality, and imports referenced to original location]

    I leave it until the bar at the top left of the screen which says 'rendering previews' has finished and disappeared, and I've also taken to using Task Manager to watch and wait until the cpu activity has reduced to zero. As you say, this can take some time.
    If I then scroll through the grid of imported images, I find some that still have three dots, and which slowly disappear one by one as they are rendered. That is very tedious, so I go back to select all, wait for the metadata to be collected as shown by the bar, select 'render standard previews' - a new bar appears saying 'scanning existing previews', and when that has finished it puts up the rendering previews and starts rendering the ones that still had three dots on them. It then eventually finishes and the bar closes, but with the last lot, I had to repeat this three times before it scanned existing previews and then stopped instead of starting the 'rendering previews' bar again. Each time it added some more previews, until they had eventually been done, and there were no images in the grid view with three dots (other than the brief flash of dots as I scroll normally).
    I've also got in the habit of clicking on 'all photographs' after opening LightRoom and waiting until Task Manager shows it has finished it's 'housekeeping', before starting any work. This seems to minimise 'Out of Memory' dialogs or 'Not Responding' situations.

  • Imported images w/standard previews problem

    I am just starting with LR and very impressed with the program.
    Most of my image files are stored on DVDs and CDRs, so I liked the idea of having the previews in LR so I could look for an image and then find the appropriate disk.
    My problem is I will insert a DVD, click on Import and check "render standard previews" and walk away. When I return, the job is completed and I take the DVD out of the drive. When I come back to LR many of the images (both the thumbnails and the rendered previews) are not there. All I see is a grey box.
    What am I doing wrong since I assume this is not the way the program is supposed to work?
    Thanks,
    Steve

    Geoff: Settings are 1440 and Medium Quality. It seems to occur more often if I do the rendering AFTER importing, instead of at the time of importing the pictures.
    Svlists: Yeah, generally that does solve the "grey box" problem, but not all the time or for all the missing images.

Maybe you are looking for